
RELATION 


OF THE 

State to Religion? 


AN ANSWER IN FOUR PARTS: 

I The Nature of the American State. 

II. The duty of the State with regard to organ¬ 

ized Religion. 

III. The treatment by the State of the property 

of Religious Societies. 

IV. The attitude of the State towards Religious 

teaching and services in Public Schools 
and State Institutions. 

BY 

G. E. GORDON, 

Pastor of the Church of the Redeemer, Milwaukee, Wis. 

i ■ ,- T - ■■ - - - 

Being an Address Delivered in the Assembly Chamber 
at Madison, February 1st, 1878. 

MILWAUKEE: 

MILLER & SMITH, PRINTERS, 

•38 MILWAUKEE STREET, 

1878. 


























National Liberal League, 


Adopted at Rochester, N. Y, Oct, 26, 1877. 


1. Total Separation of Church and State, to be guaranteed by amend¬ 
ment of the United States Constitution: including the equitable^taxation of 
church property, secularization of the public schools, abrogation of Sabbatarian 
laws, abolition of chaplaincies, prohibition of public appropriations for religious 
purposes, and all measures necessary to the same general end. 

2. National Protection for National Citizens, in their equal civil, 
political, and religious rights; to be guaranteed by amendment of the United 
States Constitution, and afforded through the United States courts. 

3. Universal Education the Basis of Universal Suffrage in this 
Secular Republic: to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States 
Constitution, requiring every State to maintain a thoroughly secularized public 
school system, and to permit no child within its limits to grow up without a 
good elementary education. 

Notice.— It is the duty of the undersigned, as a member of 7he 
National Executive Committee of the Liberal League , for Wis- 
coiisin , to take steps toward the organization of the »State on the 
above platform of principles. It is desirable to form State, Con¬ 
gressional, County and Township Leagues, auxiliary to the Nation¬ 
al Liberal League. 

The co-operation of all persons, irrespective of religious opinion, 
party, nationality, race or condition, is invited. 

Correspondence solicited and information furnished. 

Address, 

ROBERT C. SPENCER. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 



WHAT IS 


THE 

RELATION 

OF THE 

State to Religion? 


AN ANSWER IN FOUR PARTS: 

I. The Nature of the American State. 

II. The duty of the State with regard to organ¬ 

ized Religion. 

Ill The treatment by the State of the property 
of Religious Societies. 

IV. The attitude of the State towards Religious 
teaching and services in Public Schools 
and State Institutions. . 

BY 

G. E. GORDON, 

Pastor of the Church of the Redeemer, Milwaukee,Wis. 


Being an Address Delivered in the Assembly Chamber 
at Madison, February 1st, 1878. 


MILWAUKEE: 

MILLER & SMITH, PRINTERS, 

MILWAUKEE STREET, 

1878. 







loz'J 


PREFACE. 

This address was prepared in the spirit of a resolution passed by 
a Conference of Independent Religious Societies held at Janesville, 
in December, 1877. 

At that conference a unanimous vote was taken, endorsing sub¬ 
stantially, all the propositions here affirmed, concerning Church 
Taxation. 

The portion of this address relating to the Nature of the Ameri¬ 
can State, and to the duty of the State with regard to religious in¬ 
struction, is in keeping with the same resolution. 

The address is published by the Milwaukee Liberal League with 
the consent of the author. 

In the preparation of this address I have found some useful argu¬ 
ments in a book called, “Religion and the State,” written by Dr. 
Samuel T. Spear, a well known clergyman. I think them sound, 
and I have used them. I recommend the book. 

I have also quoted from this book some of the legal opinions used 
to enforce my argument. In this also I want to acknowledge my 
debt to Dr. Spear. 

I do not suppose this argument will convince all who read it, it 
may be that the fault is mine, it may be that this will be unavoidable. 

G. E. GORDON. 


Milwaukee, Jan. 30th, 1878. 



mtm 


Nothing in this address is intended by me as an attack 
on Religion. Religion is the highest affair of human life, 
and as such, should be allowed the free play of its splen¬ 
did powers over the mind and life of man. 

Nor do I desire to attack any organized form of Religion. 

I have the same respect for the conscientious convictions of my 
co-religionists, of whatever name, as I have for those of my own 
faith. The liberty I claim for myself, I willingly grant to others, 
no matter how radically they differ with me in opinion and practice. 

Much less do I desire to attack the Christian Religion, for, with 
all its faults, I still regard it as the greatest factor of civilization. 

Nor have I the slightest desire to attack Protestantism as a form 
of Christianity. It deserves the respect of all who love the princi¬ 
ples of truth and liberty. 

Nor have I the smallest, not the very smallest, desire to break 
down Roman Catholicism as a form of Religion, on the contrary, if 
I could, by word or deed, help to build it upon a purer and sounder 
basis than that upon which it has stood in the past, I should like to 
do so. I would be liberal to all alike, with the same liberality I 
claim from all. 

The object, and the sole object of my present undertaking, is to 
help forward that great consummation toward which the tendency 
of all civil ization has flowed, viz: 

The making actual and permanent, the great ideal, of 
a free State, untrammelled by priestcraft; and a free 
church, untouched by the civil power. 


v.\ 


Cf 'vv (4 

$ 

s'--'" c+ ■ V 




4 


My argument is addressed to you as citizens rather than as 
churchmen, but to everyone, churchman or not, as to one who res¬ 
pects equally the rights of all persons who belong to this great Re¬ 
public, because they are fellow citizens. 

By some short and concise argument, I want to show two or three 
points, connected with the relation of Churches to the State, which 
do not seem to be generally understood. 

I want to point out: 

I. The nature of the American State. 

II. Its duties with regard to organized Religion. 

III. Its relation to the property of religious societies. 

IV. Its relation to the teaching of Religion in the Public 
Schools and Institutions of the State. 

What then, let us ask, is the nature of the American State? 

I reply, that the American State is a civil government. 

I use the word “civil” in its old sense, as meaning, that which re¬ 
lates to citizens, as such. 

By civil government, I mean, that a state, based upon the rights 
of men as citizens, is not founded upon any of these three powers, 
viz.: the power of the Law, that of the Army, nor that of the 
Church. The American State is based only upon the rights of men 
as citizens. As such, it controls the law, and is not controlled by it. 
It creates and disbands the army and does not submit to its rule. It 
protects the church without being governed by its codes, 

The American State is supreme, and the equal rights of its citi¬ 
zens are the only rights that are paramount. 

If this be a true description of the American State, it will follow, 
inevitably, that such a State must be absolutely secular. 

The American State, based upon the equal rights of all 
its citizens; a government, “of the People, for the People, 
and by the People,” must be absolutely secular. 

This is our answer to the question, what is the nature of the 
American State? 

A Democratic State is founded upon equal and impartial rights 
inherent in man as man. It can therefore concern itself only with 
men as citizens. “The moment the State abandons this ground the 
elementary basis of a democratic government is gone.” (Spear.) 


I want to make my meaning very clear by saying, that, although 
citizens, in their capacity as men, have undoubtedly to do with the 
consideration of religious matters, yet when they are united to¬ 
gether into the State, they have nothing whatever to do with such 
matters. The State, as such, is secular, that is, it is worldly and 
temporal. The State has no more to do with God, or the duties 
men owe to Him; with Bibles, or the precepts therein contained; 
with dogmas or catechisms, than the Science of Astronomy has to 
do with the Regulations of a State Prison. 

That great charter of American liberty, the Constitution, 
clearly enunciates the secular character of the State. It limits its 
scope and duty to worldly and temporal affairs. 

This instrument shows that the people of the United States were 
originally organized “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, pro¬ 
mote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our¬ 
selves and our posterity.”. 

The Constitution of the United States recognizes, as such, 
neither Protestant nor Catholic, Orthodox nor Heretic, Theist nor 
Atheist, Christian nor Pagan; but only, each and everyone, as a 
citizen and as a man. 

The ideas for which these sectional words, Protestant, Catholic, 
Christian, Pagan, stand, do not come within the scope of the Con¬ 
stitution. 

Further, it is clear that it was the positive intention of the found¬ 
ers of the American Union, purposely to ignore all reference to 
Religion except to forbid its establishment as a part of the State. 

George Washington, in a letter addressed to the Presbyterians of 
New Hampshire and Massachusetts, (who had complained of the 
omission of a religious acknowledgment in the Constitution) ex¬ 
pressly avers that religion was left out of the account, because it 
properly belonged to the care of the churches, rather than to the 
state. (Letter in “Mass. Centinel,” Dec. 5th, 1789.) 


Til : 

Am* J 






tfthniy 


James Madison, fourth President of the United States, says, dis¬ 
tinctly, “religion is not within the purview of human government.” 

Benjamin Franklin is terse and explicit. “When a religion is 
good,” he says, “I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it 




I 


6 

cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so 
that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 
it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” (Letter to R. 
Price, Oct. 9th, 1780.) 

There can be no reasonable doubt that the American State was 
founded purely as a form of secular government, and that Religion 
was purposely left to take care of itself. 

“It was,” says Justice Story, “deemed advisable to exclude from 
the National Government all power upon the subject,” and, he adds, 
“The Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, 
the Jew and the Infidel may sit down at the common table of the 
national councils.” 

If anything could be needed to prove the original and secular 
character of the Federal Union, it is amply supplied by the Treaty 
made on the 4th day of November, 1796, between the United 
States and the State of Tripoli, acting in their capacity as Sovereign 
States. In the eleventh article of this solemn instrument occurs the 
lowing declaration: “As the government of the United States is 
not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, * * 

no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an in¬ 
terruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” 

I think it is a fact, that the American Union was a secular union of 
sovereign states. And it has continued to remain so. Nothing has 
been added to the Constitution to make that instrument religious, 
while very much has been taken from the statutes to make them 
more secular in form, as they are in fact and operation. 

This leads me to consider an objection which is constantly made 
to the State considered as merely secular, viz: That “Christianity is 
part of the Common Law.” 

Against the force of this objection I shall first make a general and 
sweeping assertion, as quoted from a decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the case of Wheaton vs. Peters. 

The wording of this declaration is as follows: “There is no 
principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that 
is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the Union. The 
Common Law could be made a part of our Federal system only by 
legislative adoption.” 


/ 


That is to say, that, the United States recognizes no law 
which is not in complete harmony with the Constitution, 

In this sense then it is manifestly improper to speak of Christianity 
as being a part of the law of the land, until it is first a part of the 
Constitution. 

But further, let me quote a few authorities upon this question. 

Says Sedgwick, on page 14 of his “Construction of Statutory and 
Constitutional Law:” “It is often said that Christianity is part and 
parcel of the common law, but this is true only in the sense that our 
constitutions extend the same protection to every form of religion, 
and give no preference to any.” 

Judge Cooley, in his “Constitutional Limitations,” page 472, ob¬ 
serves: “It is frequently said that Christianity is a part of the law 
of the land. Christianity is not a part of the law of the land by 
virtue of its authority as a religion, but only as far as its precepts 
have become component parts of the law.” 

In the same treatise, this eminent jurist remarks, that “It is not 
toleration which is established in our system but religious equality;” 
which is a very different thing. 

Justice Story, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of 
the United States vs. Girard's Executors , referred to Christianity 
as being “a part of the common law of Pennsylvania,” but imme¬ 
diately qualified this remark, by saying, that, “this proposition must 
be taken in connection with the bill of rights found in its Constitu¬ 
tion,” which, “protected alike every variety of religious opinion, and 
extends equally to all men, whether Christians, Jews or Infidels.” 

The existence of Sunday Laws may seem to oppose the position 
now taken, but this is a superficial view, as will be seen by a close 
perusal of many legal decisions on this question, of which one is now 
given, viz:—By the Supreme Court of Ohio ,(McGatrick vs. Wasson.) 
“The principles upon which our (Sunday) Statute rests are wholly 
secular, and they are none the less so because they may happen to 
concur with the dictates of religion. ***** Unless, then, 
we keep constantly in mind that the act rests upon public policy 
alone we shall be in great danger of giving it a wrong construction; 
and instead of reading it in the light of the Constitution which pro¬ 
hibits all religious tests and preferences, find ourselves led away from 
its meaning by the influence of our peculiar theological tenets.” 


8 


Chief Justice Kent, and Chief Justice Shaw, have both declared, 
that, there are no offences punishable by law as against religion, but 
only “as they tend to disturb the public peace,” and “maliciously in¬ 
terfere with the rights of others.” 

Justice Clayton, of the Supreme Court of Delaware, ( State vs. 
Chandler ,) gives an elaborate opinion as to the question of the re¬ 
cognition of Christianity as a part of the common law. He decides, 
that, the common law can take notice only of such offences as pro¬ 
voke a breach of the public safety, and this, no matter what religion 
was that of the majority. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio, ( Bloom vs. Richards ,) said, “Neith¬ 
er Christianity nor any other system of religion is a part of the law 
of the State.” Again, this same Court says, ( Board of Education 
of Cincinnati vs. Minor,) “We are told that Christianity 
is a part of the common law of this country, lying be¬ 
hind and above its constitutions. Those who make this 
assertion can hardly be serious and intend the import 
of their language. No one seriously contends for any 
such doctrine in this country, or in this age of the 
world.” 

It is clear indeed, that, these opinions, delivered by the most emi¬ 
nent authorities in the land, have the same tone and bearing, viz., 
that, all laws are subservient to the Constitution, which instrument 
undoubtedly regards the American State as secular, and in no sense 
as religious. 

No stronger evidence can be needed to prove the secular charac¬ 
ter and intention of the Constitution, than the fact, that, a very 
large body of Orthodox Protestants are at this very time earnestly 
seeking to de-secularize the Constitution, by a change in the pre¬ 
amble, acknowledging Religion. 

The whole question of the nature of the American State may be 
briefly stated in these words. 

I. The State is civil and secular. 

II. With Religion, as a legalized system, it has nothing to do. 

III. With Religion, as a protected system, it stands in the exact 
position described by Judge Appleton, of the Supreme Court of the 
State of Maine, ( Donahoe vs. Richards :) “The State does not rec- 


9 


ognize the superiority of any form of religion, or of any sect or de¬ 
nomination, but regards the Pagan and the Mormon, the Brahmin 
and the Jew, the Swedenborgian and the Buddhist, the Catholic and 
the Quaker as possessing equal rights.” 

And this brings us to consider the relation of the State to organ¬ 
ized Religion. 

What is the duty of the State with regard to organized Religion? 

I answer, first, that it is the duty of the State to tolerate voluntary 
associations of people for religious purposes, as long as they do not 
interfere with the acknowledged rights of others. This needs no 
argument, but will be admitted by all parties and sects. (Spear.) 

Second. It is the duty of the State to protect the peaceable as¬ 
sembly of religious societies against insult or disturbance. The 
State does this not because of the character of the societies as being 
religious, but because it is bound so to protect all peaceable gather¬ 
ings of citizens for any innocent and lawful purpose. 

Third. In the language of Justice Strong, (page 37) “The 
State must leave the internal management of a Church exclusively 
to its own regulations.” Or, in the language of the Supreme Court 
of South Carolina, (Spear’s Equity Report, S. C., page 80.) “The 
structure of our government has secured religious liberty from the 
invasion of the civil authority.” 

Fourth. The State must provide for the incorporation of religious 
societies, just as it provides for the incorporation of all other societies 
for lawful ends and purposes: therefore, it must give to religious so¬ 
cieties power to hold and acquire property, to make legal contracts, 
to sue and to be sued, and to do and perform all and every lawful act 
which is possible to any corporate body, whether religious or secular. 

But let it be remembered, that, the State owes no duty 
to a religious society which it does not owe to all other 
societies. \ Nor can it grant to a religious society any 
benefits or exemptions which are not common to all 
other corporate bodies. i^t ^ tv- r (< 

This leads us directly to consider the question of the exemption of 
Church property from the burden of ordinary taxation. 

What is the duty of the State with regard to the property of 

religious societies? 

2 


IO 


I reply. To put such property upon the same common ground 
with the property of all private citizens and all other corporate bod¬ 
ies: which means, that, the property of Churches is not entitled to 
privilege. 

A privilege is an immunity or benefit, enjoyed by a few, but de¬ 
nied to others: or granted to the many, but denied to the mass. 

Now, as a matter of fact, we find that Church property, in this 
State, is exempt from the burden of taxation imposed upon the rest 
of property. 

This exemption is based upon an act of the State Legislature, 
made under a clause in the Constitution of Wisconsin, which seems 
to give to the Legislature a discriminating power. 

But, be that as it may, the fact is, that, Church property is, at 
present, exempt from taxation in this State, and we think improper¬ 
ly so, for the following good and sufficient reasons, viz: 

1. Upon general principles, based upon the duties of the State. 

2. Upon particular principles which apply mainly to the case in 
point. 

We affirm that it is a sound general principle, that, the State as 
such knows nothing of Religion as such. “The province of the 
State in respect to matters of religion is that it has no 
province at all.” ( Ralj)h Ward/azv.) We have seen this to be 
the underlying principle of the State in regard to Religion, viz: 
that it does not know it as Religion, but only as one of the many 
activities, which, when lawfully pursued, claim its protection. Un¬ 
der this great principle, Religion has no right to privilege, or exemp- 
tionYrom common burdens. 

Exemption of Church property from taxation is a partial union of 
Church and State. 

I do not say a union of Church and State, but as far as it goes, it 
is a partial union. 

Whatever is supported at the public expense, and without contri¬ 
buting any portion of such support, is, to the extent of such support, 
taken up and embodied into the State. 

This cannot be denied. 

Now the American States, either in their individual or united ca¬ 
pacity, cannot do more for Religion than to grant to it protection in 


IX 


its legal rights upon the same terms as all other spheres of activity; 
viz: upon condition that it pays its share of the cost of 
that protection. Upon any other terms than these the State be¬ 
comes a party to the promulgation of religion; which, under the 
spirit of the Constitution, is a breach of the liberty of the State. 

It is a sound general principle that the State ought to support, 
with public money, only such institutions as are erected to carry out 
its own secular ends and aims. 

These ends and aims may be classified under the following heads: 
the protection of its borders, commerce, honor and property; the 
protection of morality , personal liberty and life; the administration 
of its laws and economy; the development of its resources and pros¬ 
perity; the education of its people in keeping with its idea as a secu¬ 
lar institution. 

The erection and support of institutions to carry out these ends is 
the duty of the State; but they must be in every sense public and 
not private. 

A public institution, within the meaning of this principle, is fi) 
the property, in every part, of the State; is (2) under the complete 
control of the officers of the State; is (3) a part of the machinery of 
the State, and (4) is supported by the State and by none else. 

If this be true, (as what fair minded man shall say it is not?) it will 
follow inevitably, that, no part of the public taxes can be 
rightly used in support of private institutions. 

Is it not true, that, the remission or exemption of Church property 
from taxation is exactly equivalent to a grant of money to such prop¬ 
erty, to the amount of the tax? If it is, then the State is using pub¬ 
lic money in aid of private enterprizes. 

Churches, and Church Schools, Church Asylums and Hospitals, 
Church cemeteries and grave-yards, Theological Schools and Sec¬ 
tarian Colleges, Convents and Nunneries, and every institution be¬ 
longing to Churches and to religious societies, are each and all pri¬ 
vate, and nothing but private affairs. 

The State has neither entire control nor use of them, and should 
not contribute one cent to their support. 

Yet the State does, in fact, so contribute whenever it remits the 
tax which would fall upon them if they were secular societies. 

■ ■ ■ U 




I am aware that much sophistry is employed to bring Church 
property under the category of public institutions. 

But it is easy to silence these specious arguments by an appeal to 
the use of the word “public” in other relations. 

We all recognize the meaning of the word when we speak of 
Public Schools, Public Roads, Public Parks, Public Lands, Public 
Jails, Public Officials, Public Documents. 

Now let the same common sense be applied to the case before us, 
and this kind of imbecile and empty argument will crumble away. 

A public institution is one in which private persons have no rights 
of control, except through the forms of government provided by 
the State, that is, through the use of the ballot. 

That definition excludes church property from any use of the 
name “Public.” 

If objection be made that churches are a public good, and there¬ 
fore should be exempted from taxation, let it be remembered that 
the State, as such, has no ground of right to discriminate between 
different kinds of good. 

If Churches are religious or moral benefactors of society, banks, 
horse-railroads, and industrial enterprizes are also benefactors, in 
another sphere of good. The State has no solid and equitable right 
to discriminate among different “goods,” in favor of religious or 
moral. In fact, byj>arijty of reasoning, all persons, things, and in¬ 
stitutions, which are not bad in their effect upon society should also 
be exempt from taxation. 

Ought not all institutions and all enterprizes to be exempt from 
taxation upon equal terms? We think they should. Therefore if 
a Church be exempt because it confers a moral or spiritual benefit 
upon society, all other enterprizes should also be free from the bur¬ 
den of taxes, if it can be shown that they exert a material benefit. 

The State, which ought to be strictly secular, should make no 
discrimination in favor of any one good over every other. 

Further. We must guard against thinking of Churches, in our 
time, as belonging to public philanthropy. 

Allowing all we can (injustice to the facts) in favor of the good 
Churches exert upon the community, we must still consider that 
they are more nearly private societies than public charities. 


»s 

The public is not provided-for to any great extent in our exist¬ 
ing church services, but pews and sittings are the property of pri¬ 
vate individuals, who enjoy almost all the benefits which these ser¬ 
vices bestow. 

All persons have to contribute by taxation to the support of 
churches whose accomodations are devoted mainly to private pur¬ 
poses. 

But this is not all. Churches are far from being public philan¬ 
thropies in the fact that they are sectarian institutions. 

While we cannot and would not deny the leavening influence of 
Churches upon society, we must not be blind to the fact that a large 
part of church effort is directed towards the Spread of merely sec¬ 
tarian opinions. Inasmuch then, and in-as-far as Churches are sec¬ 
tarian affairs, they have no claim upon the public treasury on the 
score of their public uses. 

Look around upon the mass of church charitable institutions, and 
see if the public is served as much as the sect. An institution, no 
matter how benevolent may be its name and its aim, if it provides 
only for those of its own fold or society; or if it requires conforma¬ 
tion to its own ideas and usages from those who are its beneficiaries; 
cannot rightfully be called a public benefit, nor can it justly claim 
aid from the public taxes. 

But more than this. Churches have debarred themselves from a 
classification among public institutions by the creation of such and 
certain by-laws as do decisively shut out the majority of persons in 
this country. 

To make the matter plain and unmistakable; all taxable persons 
are compelled indirectly to support Churches, but they cannot be¬ 
come members of them unless they agree with their opinions. 
Mind, I do not say that the majority of taxed persons do not belong 
to the Churches they help to support, though this is a fact; but I 
say, they cannot become members if they would. 

By the erection of by-laws relating to private opinions and pri¬ 
vate usages, the Churches become, in fact and name, private corpor¬ 
ations, and not only private but highly exclusive; and, as such, es¬ 
sentially and effectively, different from anything that may be called 
public. 


H 


Then again, if objection be raised against the taxation of Churches 
because they are benevolent and not money-making institutions, let 
it be considered that this is not strictly the case. The Churches 
make money for the minister and choir, and sexton, while, 
as regards a large number of those who belong as members, such 
membership is a source of commercial credit and emolument. 

Even although we ought not to say that the ministry is strictly a 
commercial undertaking, we must not overlook the fact that it is 
one of the professions, by the exercise of which, a large number of 
persons are supported in comparative ease. 

It is not likely, however, that the public would object to pay in- 
direptiy for the support of Churches, simply because two or three 
people derive an income from them. There is, however, another 
more serious reason, of a commercial kind, which will present itself 
to the thoughtful mind as a very strong argument against church 
exemption. It is this: Churches, as corporate bodies, ac¬ 
quire immense political power through the control of 
property. 

The experience of the past, in Europe, shows us that most of the 
political power wielded by the Church has resulted from the posses¬ 
sion of landed estates of immense size and value. The pressure of 
this power led, in England, to the confiscation of the monasteries, 
as a measure of public safety. 

The same danger threatens us in America. 

Let me give you, as an example, the case of Trinity Church Cor¬ 
poration, an Episcopal Society in New York City. This corpora¬ 
tion owns a vast, untaxed tract of land, lying compactly in the best 
business portion of the city, and extending nearly two miles in 
length, and from ^th to fths in breadth; the value of this untaxed 
land is estimated at 25,000,000 of dollars, and the amount of addition¬ 
al taxes laid upon the rest of the people is reckoned at not far short 
of $1,750,000 per annum. 

Now, what equivalent in good does this corporation render for 
this enormous State support? 

It keeps public services in its church, it is tolerably benevolent to 
the poor of its own faith. Say, if you like, that it does very much 
good with its money: but look at the other side of the account. The 


l 5 


official Records of Police of New York City announce that, this, un¬ 
taxed land bears upon its breast, 764 “gin-mills” of the New York 
species, and 96 known houses of prostitution, of the same New 
York variety. What shall we say about it? The “moral” goes 
without saying. 

Mind you, I do not say all untaxed church property is put to the 
like infamous purposes, but I do say, that this consummation is pos¬ 
sible to any untaxed property, because the very fact of a remission 
of taxes gives to corporations the chance to acquire immense wealth, 
and immense wealth can always be used to defy decency and the 
law. 

I say then further, that the exemption of real estate from taxation 
gives corporations an undue advantage over the private citizen. 
The Church in Milwaukee has become a speculator in real estate, 
upon a comparatively large scale, and it is insured against the losses 
which cripple private enterprize, by its exemption from the “para¬ 
site” of taxation. 

Take, as one example among many, that large tract of land, ly¬ 
ing on the Grand Avenue Hill, guarded from the public treasury by 
a few headstones. Those citizens of Milwaukee who have held 
real estate for the past 20 years, have become “land-poor” on account 
of taxation. But this, and hundreds of acres more, have been ex¬ 
empt while they have had to pay, and these wide acres are now 
ready to be put into the market at a vast advantage. In this way 
the Church weilds a power which private enterprize is debarred 
from. 

It cannot be denied that wealth gives political power, and such 
power is all the more dangerous to the public safety, when it is in 
the hands of corporations whose business in life it is to promulgate 
opinions. 

Opinions should stand or fall by their own weight, and the State 
is laying the axe at the root of its own fair tree, when it gives to 
any corporations the power to become strong at the expense of the 
public purse and the public weal. 

Public justice then, as well as public safety, demand that no polit¬ 
ical power shall be gained at the expense of honest tax-payers. If 
the Church were indeed a “kingdom not of this world,” the world 


i6 


would be safe in letting it go untaxed, but every year, and all past 
experience, show conclusively that ecclesiastical power means to 
make the best of both worlds, by securing all temporal advantages 
a short-sighted legislation may put in its way. 

But the exemption of Church Property from taxation is not only 
a breach of democratic policy, in respect to non-intervention ; not 
only a breach of democratic policy in respect to the just uses of pub¬ 
lic money ; it is also a breach of democratic policy in regard to the 
fundamental basis upon which taxation itself rests. 

Undoubtedly it is a grand general principle that tax¬ 
ation should be equal, just and fair. 

The exemption of Churches from taxation is a breach of public 
morality. 

The State ought not to remit one of its proper dues unless it re¬ 
ceives in return a tangible equivalent in terms of utility. 

When the State compels a man to pay an increased tax because it 
exempts certain corporations, I have a right to ask to see a “value 
received,” in secular terms. 

The State makes to the Churches an annual gift of upwards of 
10,000,000 of dollars, and gets back, at best, only a “sentimental” 
return for it. Now influence upon public sentiment belongs to the 
sphere of philanthropy, and not utility, and does not come under 
the domain of a secular state. 

Further, the exemption of Churches from taxation is opposed to 
a fundamental principle of taxation, viz., that it shall rest upon com¬ 
mon consent. 

The Constitution of this state (Wisconsin) expressly declares: 
“Nor shall any man be compelled to support any church, or to main¬ 
tain any ministry, against his consent.” It further declares, that, 
“The rule of taxation shall be uniform.” It further declares, “No 
money shall be drawn from the public treasury for the benefit of 
religious societies.” 

All of which declarations go to show, that, the spirit of the Con¬ 
stitution is on the side of public justice, a public justice expressed in 
this phrase: “No man should be compelled to support institutions 
of which he disapproves.” Yet in the face of this principle of jus¬ 
tice, it has been objected to this movement for the taxation of 


*7 


Churches and church property, that, “if church property be taxed, 
the money will have to come out of the pockets of the God-fearing 
man, while the Atheists, and the Socialists, will go scot free.” Now 
this does not seem to us so much an objection as a recommendation. 

The money ought to come out of the pockets of “God-fearing 
men,” that is, we suppose, of churchmembers, and not out of the 
pockets of Atheists, Socialists and other IndifFerentists. 

The Constitution of the United States in its spirit, and the Consti¬ 
tution of most, if not of all, of the States declare, “No man can of 
right be compelled to support any place of worship, or to maintain 
any ministry, against his consent.” (Const, of Penn.) 

Now exemption of Churches from taxation is indirect taxation of 
the whole community, including, of course, Atheists, Socialists, &c., 
for the support of the Churches. 

The Churches are a direct charge upon the community, supported 
by indirect taxation. 

If Churches were in general respects self-contained and self-sup¬ 
porting, there might be slight reason why they should be exempted, 
but they are not. They need protection by the custodians of pub¬ 
lic safety. They can claim indemnity in case of destruction by 
mobs. They can call out the militia or the fire-department in case 
of fire. In fact, they stand in the same mutual relation to the com¬ 
munity as do all other private properties. 

And the proportion of the expense of maintaining this protective 
system on behalf of Churches, falls, pro-rata, upon Atheists, Social¬ 
ists, and their allies. That is to say, men who are not consenting 
parties to Churches, and to church principles and purposes, but op- 
posers to them, are compelled to contribute, by taxes, their share 
of this protective expense, which is unconstitutional. 

The Disestablishment of the Irish Church, a few years ago by 
the people of Great Britain, found its (“raison d’etre”) justifying 
reason in the fact that the Church of the minority was supported by 
the majority of the taxpaying people of Ireland. 

So here. The majority of the American people are non-church¬ 
goers, and should not be made to pay, directly or indirectly, for the 
Church of the minority. Yet the taxation which should have been 

3 


IS 


borne by the church-going minority, aggregated, last year, not far 
from ten millions of dollars. 

The following additional objections have been, from time to time, 
raised against the taxation of Churches and church properties, viz: 

“Church property never has been taxed in the past.” “That even 
the heathen abstained from taxing the temples of their Gods.” 

Now upon questions of principles, no argument can be valid that 
is based upon precedent: e. g. Previous to 1740 no one thought 
negro-slavery was wrong. Previous to 1775 110 one “taxation 
without representation” to be a crime. 

Mere precedent is no argument, nor is any precedent valid unless 
it is corroborative of other and stronger reasons. The fact that the 
heathen did not tax the temples of the Gods is not now an argument 
which can find a place in American thought, for the simple reasons 
that the temples of the Gods were the property of the State, and 
Paganism in Greece and Rome was the religion of the State. Our 
Churches are private property and vve have no State Religion. 

For a heathen State to tax its own temples would be absurd, 
merely exchanging money from right hand to left. 

But besides, American usages differ from heathen ones, simply 
because we are not heathens, though we may have retained a hea¬ 
then custom or two, among which may be the exemption of 
Churches from taxation. 

Another objection has been raised against taxing church property, 
“That it is sound public policy to exempt all institutions which tend 
to ameliorate crime, pauperism and misery.” The fallacy of this ar¬ 
gument is, that, it proves too much. If the State supports Churches 
by indirect taxes, because they are real conservators of society, then 
it ought also, on the same principle, to build Churches and pay min¬ 
isters. The State has its own machinery for the suppression of 
crime and misery. 

And, if it is true that the State should exempt from taxation such 
social factors as directly lessen crime and misery, then surely every 
honest and well ordered home, every temperate and law-abiding 
citizen, every well managed factory, every gymnasium, and 
every one of a thousand other things, which, by their influence 
produce public morality, should likewise be exempted and privileged. 


*9 


But there is one other aspect of this matter which cannot be 
overlooked here, viz: It is held as true, by very many prominent 
students of practical economy, that Church charities do rather 
increase than decrease pauperism. Let this remark stand for 
what it is worth. 

Again. Churches should no longer be exempt from taxation 
upon principles which apply mainly to the case itself. 

Their exemption from taxation is very injurious to 
Religion. It is a wounding of Religion in the house of its friends. 
Religion professes to come from God to men. It should, then, pre¬ 
sent a God-like and noble front. It should appeal only to the very 
highest impulses; it should use only the very grandest implements. 
It should be free from all sordid ambitions, and all worldly desires. 

It should not only recommend itself to believers, but 
also—and more fully—to unbelievers. It should leave the 
scoffer nothing at which to scoff, the scorner nothing to divide. It 
should be “free from the very appearance of evil.” 

But, as a beneficiary of the State, as a pauper upon the public 
pocket, the Church detracts from its security, and lessens its hold 
upon the respect of men. Instead of coming among unbelievers as 
a messenger of God, bringing gifts, it comes as a beggar, asking the 
poor pittance of remitted taxes, or—what is worse—as a real estate 
speculator and land-grabber. 

Let the Church take warning, for if it keeps its taxes from Caesar, 
the world will soon question as to whether it does not also keep 
back its dues from God. If the Church is not exactly on the defen¬ 
sive, as regards the mass of thoughtful people composing the major¬ 
ity of Americans, it is at least “upon its good behaviour” and cannot 
afford to throw away one chance of appearing at its best. And in¬ 
deed, if it has a priceless treasure to give to men, let it not charge 
them the paltry pittance of the taxes. “Knock and it shall be open¬ 
ed,” saith the Lord. “Knock and pay two pence,” saith the Chap¬ 
ter-Board. Let all honest men and honest Churches pay their taxes. 

“Behold!” says Paul, “thou art called a (Christian) and art confi¬ 
dent that thou thyself art a guide to the blind, a light of them that 
are in darkness; thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou 
not thyself; thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou 
steal”—thy taxes? 


20 


Finally. What is the duty of the State with regard to the teach¬ 
ing of Religion in its schools and public institutions? 

I reply. The duty of the State is to have nothing to do 
with the teaching of Religion. The duty of the State with 
regard to the management of its public schools and institutions, is 
wholly secular ; the public, schools, normal schools or universities, 
cannot be regarded as Churches, Synagogues, or Theological Sem¬ 
inaries, in any sense whatever, however modified. A part of this 
secular duty is undoubtedly to inculcate what may be called “School” 
morals: such as patience, diligence, industry, respect for authority, 
cleanliness, self-control, truthfulness, honesty, regard for rights, and 
the like—“those virtues which belong to man as man.” (Spear.) 
This is secular teaching, and belongs to the duty of a democratic State. 
Those who call it “godless” and “irreligious,” do not understand 
the true meaning of those words. The teaching of reading, writ¬ 
ing, arithmetic, general history, &c., is neither religious nor irrelig¬ 
ious, it is simply removed from the region of thought implied by 
those terms. 

We should not think of calling a bootmaker a “godless” man, be¬ 
cause he did not accompany the purchase of each pair of boots with 
a theological tract. We simply say ‘give me boots, when I come 
to you, I will go to my church for theological tracts.’ 

Still, the exclusion of religious exercise, as such, and religious 
teaching, as such, from Public School Education; does not exclude 
morality. Take the case of the bootmaker again, we ask him to 
give us honest boots, and clean boots, and make change for our bill 
in lawful and honest money, and so forth. We expect any man 
who sets up a store to conduct it on moral principles. The morality 
that is embodied in our laws,—a morality that requires honesty, 
chastity, cleanliness, industry, frugality, decency of speech, truthful¬ 
ness &c., is just a morality based upon the very structure of civil so¬ 
ciety, and would retain its hold upon human life if all theology were 
abolished. This morality can, and should, be taught by the schools 
of the State, because it is the foundation of the laws of the State. 

Those who say that such morality cannot be taught, except upon 
the authority of the Bible or Catechism, have not read the history 
of the rise and growth of human law, nor do they know anything 


21 


of the foundations of moral sanctions. The laws of our Courts of 
Justice are enforced upon the authority of the State, and the moral 
principles upon which these laws are founded may be taught by the 
State in its schools. But, as we do not call a Court of Justice “irre¬ 
ligious” or “godless” because it does not ©pen its sessions with pray¬ 
er and Bible reading, nor enforce its penalties by appeals to the Bible 
or Prayer-book; neither should we call a public school “irreligious 
and “godless,” because it conducts its exercises in the same civil and 
secular manner. 

There are Churches; there are Sunday Schools for Protestants 
and Catholics; there are Sabbath Schools for Hebrews and 7th Day 
Baptists: these schools are protected in their rights, a day is set 
apart for most of them, so that they shall have free opportunities to 
attend to matters pertaining to Religion. Let these Churches, and 
these Sunday and Sabbath Schools, do their duty; and let the peo¬ 
ple, Protestants, Catholics, and non-churchmen, use the schools of 
the State for secular purposes only, and nobody will be offended, 
and everybody benefited thereby. Most schools are closed on Sat¬ 
urdays and Sundays; this gives the Churches two whole days for 
the educational care of the children; and a much better opportunity 
for imparting religious instruction, than could possibly be had in the 
Public Schools. 

Another argument against religious services or teaching in the 
Institutions of the State is, that, the teaching of Protestant or any 
other form of Christianity, in the public schools, must be paid for 
by taxation of the whole people. But, according to the year books 
of the various Christian Churches, only one-third of the entire peo¬ 
ple of the United States are nominal Christians; in 1867 there were 
less than one-third. Teaching of this kind, then, would be unjust 
to the majority of the citizens of the United Staets. It is a positive 
wrong. And even though the majority were Christians and Prot¬ 
estants, the teaching of Christianity in the schools would be a moral 
wrong to the minority. 

Among the “things which are not lawful under any of the Amer¬ 
ican Constitutions,” Judge Cooley, in his “Constitutional Limita¬ 
tions,” page 469, specifies: “Compulsory support, by taxation or 
otherwise, of religious instruction.” “Not only is no one denomina- 


11 


tion to be favored at the expense of the rest but all support of re¬ 
ligious instruction must be entirely voluntary.” (Spear’s Review.) 

Judge Welch, of the Supreme Court of Ohio, says, (Board of Ed. 
vs. Minor) : “The teaching of the Christian Religion in 
the public schools, violates the spirit of our constitu¬ 
tional guaranties, and is a state religion in embryo ; * 

* * the first step is a fatal step, because it logically 

involves the last step.” 

Again, the State cannot teach Religion in the schools, because it 
cannot decide as to what religion to teach. How can the State teach 
more than one variety, in a place, or at any given time? I have 
heard it said, that, “it does not matter what religion is taught, or what 
Bible is used, so long as some religion, and a Bible have place in 
our public institutions.” 

Let me say that if any one is really in earnest about the teaching 
of religion, he will be particular as to the kind. A man who is in¬ 
different as to the kind, is a man whose religion is not worth teach¬ 
ing at all. The State must choose, if it teaches at all. For exam¬ 
ple: there is an infinite difference between a religion that regards 
Jesus of Nazareth as the Eternal Son of God, and the Divine Re¬ 
deemer of the world; and one that thinks him the son of the carpen¬ 
ter and the founder of a sect. There is an unthinkable distinction 
between those who regard the Bible as the Infallible word of the 
Living God, and those who think of it as a good book, or as, even, 
the best of books. There is a gulf, which can never be spanned, 
between those who think of Revelation, as a supernatural gift of 
grace, and those who hold truth to be the outcome of the insight of 
man. 

What suits the Catholic ought not to suit the Protestant, what is 
religion to the Presbyterian cannot be so to the Israelite or the 
Unitarian. Yet, if the State teaches any religion, or uses any relig¬ 
ious book, it must choose, and in choosing, the State becomes the 
promulgator of one form of religion, to the detriment of those who 
hold other beliefs. The State, by the very nature of the case, 
must abstain from all connection with the teaching of religion, 
simply because it cannot decide which form to use as the base of 
its teaching. 


2 3 


It may be said that the State could teach, or use, unsectarian 
religion. Let it be said that there is no such thing known to the 
world as such. The Hebrew Bible is sectarian to the Christian, 
the “Geneva” sectarian to the Catholic, the “authorized” sectarian 
to the Unitarian. The “Lord’s Prayer,” simple though it be, is 
sectarian to the “silent” way of the Quaker. All these views call 
for our respect, but none of them for public recognition by the 
State. 

When there is a chance for the State to respect the 
conscience of any minority, the State is morally bound 
to do so. 

“But,” some may say, “ought not the majority to rule in this case 
as in other cases?” I reply to this ; certainly not, when the min¬ 
ority can be respected without prejudice to vital interests. I main¬ 
tain, that while the State protects Churches, and Sunday and Sab¬ 
bath Schools, in their free rights, there is no call that the minority 
conscience should be persecuted by the majority conscience. I reply, 
further, that it would be unsafe to allow the question to be settled by 
mere majorities. 

In Mormon communities the. public teaching would be Mormon. 
In Chinese communities it would be Chinese. How would our 
Protestant friends feel about the public teaching of the tenets of 
Thomas Paine and Voltaire, in communities where the majority 
were followers of these men? I think they would begin to think 
that majorities do not decide all questions. 

Further, the rule of the majority in matters pertaining to religion, 
has always led, in past times, to direct persecution of the minority. 
It is only by a careful respect for the conscience of the minority 
that religious persecution can be avoided. This is the verdict of 
history. 

The aim of the State should be, to make the Public 
School, a Common School, and, as it is the first place in 
which a child is brought into contact with the govern¬ 
ment under which he is to grow up and live, here he 
should find embodied those principles of equal justice, 
impartial right, and perfect freedom, which it is the 
boast of true America to present to the world. 


2 4 


In conclusion, let me utter in your hearing, some words used by 
Judge Welch, in rendering a decision from the bench of the Su¬ 
preme Court of Ohio, upon a similar question to the one now 
before us. Words that are an inspiration to all that is fairest in 
Christianity,and all that is truest in government: “Government is 
an organization for a particular purpose. It is not almighty and we 
are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk of human 
affairs and human interests are left by a free government to individ¬ 
ual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of 
these interests lying outside the true and legitimate province of gov¬ 
ernment. Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. 
When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond impartial 
protection it disowns itself. United with government Relig¬ 
ion never rises above superstition; united with Relig¬ 
ion government never rises above the merest despotism; 
and all history shows us that the more widely and 
completely they are separated the better it is for both.” 


Petition for Religious Freedom Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, 

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, in Congress assembled :— 

At the Centennial Congress of Liberals, which resolved itself into a perma¬ 
nent organization as the National Liberal League, this resolution was unani¬ 
mously adopted.:— 

Resolved , That the National Liberal League, convened at Philadelphia from 
July First to July Fourth, 1876, respectfully petitions the Senate and House of 
Representatives, in Congress assembled, to recommend to the several States 
for adoption such a “Religious Freedom Amendment” of the United States 
Constitution as shall effect the total separation of Church and State in 
all branches and departments of the government, National, State, and munici¬ 
pal, and protect all American citizens in the enjoyment of their equal religious 
rights and liberties; that petitions be circulated throughout the couutry in 
support of this petition, and, if possible, a million signatures to the same be 
obtained; and that the Board of Directors of the National Liberal League are 
hereby instructed to carry this resolution into effect. 

We, therefore, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, respectfully 
pray your honorable bodies to grant the petition of the National Liberal League 
above set forth; and we submit the following form of amendment proposed as 
a substitute for the present First Amendment of the United States Constitution, 
as one which, in our judgment, contains nothing which is not essential and nec¬ 
essary in order to effect the Total Separation of Church and state:— 

ARTICLE I. 

Section 1. — Neither Congress nor any State shall make any law respecting 
an establishment of religion, or favoring any particular form of religion, or pro¬ 
hibiting the free exercise thereof; or permitting in any degree a union of 
Church and State, or granting any special privilege, immunity, or advantage 
to any sect or religious body, or to any number of sects or religious bodies; or 
taxing the people of any State, either directly or indirectly, for the support of 
any sect or religious body, or of any number of sects or religious bodies; or 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Section 2. —No religious test shall ever be required as a condition of suffrage 
or as a qualification to any office or public trust, in any State. No person shall 
ever be deprived of any of his or her rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqual¬ 
ified for the performance of any public or private duty, or rendered incompetent 
to give evidence in any court of law or equity, in consequence of any opinions 
he or she may hold on the subject of religion. No person shall ever be requir¬ 
ed by law to contribute directly or indirectly to the support of any religious 
society or body of which he or she is not a voluntary member. 

Section 3.—Neither the United States, nor any State, Territory, municipal¬ 
ity, or any civil division of any State or Territory, shall levy any tax, or make 
any gift, grant, or appropriation, for the support, or in aid, ol any church, relig¬ 
ious sect, or denomination, or any school, seminary or institution ot learning, 
in which the faith or doctrines of any religious order or sect shall be taught or 
inculcated, or in which religious rites or practices shall be observed; or for the 
support, or in aid, of any religious charity or purpose of any sect, order or de¬ 
nomination whatsoever. 

Section 4.—Congress shall have power to enforce the various provisions of 
this Article by appropriate legislation. __ 

NAMES. | RESIDENCES. 

N. B. Blank petitions furnished upon application to 

R. C. SPENCER, 
Milwaukee, Wis. 










RELIGION AND THE IT. “ LI 

—BY— 

REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, D. D., 


562 5 I 


FOR SALE BY 

W. S. HAMILTON & CO., 

MILWAUKEE, - WIS. 


We will send the above book post-paid on receipt of $1.50. It covers the 
ground of the Taxation of Church Property, Bible in the Schools, etc. 


CARL DOERFLINGER, 

56 ONEIDA ST., Opera House Building, 

MILWAUKEE, - WIS. 

BOOKSELLER, STATIONER, 

NEWSDEALER, PUBLISHER, PRINTER AND BINDER. 
BOOKS AND PERIODICALS. PRINTER IN THE 
ENGLISH'AND GERMAN LANGUAGES. 

Scientific, Educational, and Liberal Books and Periodicals, 

ORDERS SOLICITED. 


THE BIBLE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

-BY- 

BISHOP McQUAD and F. E. ABBOT, 

FOR SALE BY 

Wm. ELLIS, 130 Wisconsin Street, 

MILWAUKEE, - WIS. 

P 

Sent post-paid on receipt of 30 cents. 





/BUSINESS COLLEGE, 

MILWAUKEE, WIS. 
For information address R.C. SPENCER. 



























































